Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

“I’ll Take Care of You”

January 14th, 2014 - 4:26 pm

Scott Johnson at Powerline says he suspected there was something fishy about the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran from the first.  ”If the idea is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the agreement is a bust.”

It leaves the centrifuges running and it leaves a stockpile of enriched uranium sufficient for several bombs. The scope of the agreement does not extend beyond the known enrichment facilities and the facility under construction at Parchin. It guarantees Iran that at the end of the day it will be left with a nuclear program. Combined with the sanctions relief Iran secures up front, it looks like the agreement facilitates Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The problem simply stated was this. Either one of two things had to be true: Iran gives up the bomb or it does not. The Obama administration claims it has negotiated an end to the Iranian bomb, but the Iranians do not appear to act as if they will. Which then, is true?

His confidence fell a few more notices when the Los Angeles Times quoted an Iranian official disclosing the existence of a secret agreement between the administration and Teheran that spelled out the establishment of a joint commission. The commission would have the power to decide whether Iran was giving up the bomb or not.

Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency. … Araqchi described the joint commission as an influential body that will have authority to decide disputes. U.S. officials have described it as a discussion forum rather than a venue for arbitrating major disputes. …

In his interview, Araqchi touched on the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its nuclear research and development.

U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran would be allowed to continue existing research and development projects and with pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with new projects. Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide latitude.

“No facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative and nuclear research will be expanded,” he said. “All research into a new generation of centrifuges will continue.”

The State Department, for its part, denied there was any material secrecy afoot. “A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement.” “We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available,” Harf said.


But until the contents of this deal are announced, the only way the public can evaluate the proposed deal is through the operation of trust. If we “trust” the administration then we will accept that the secret deal — whatever it may be — is beneficial to America. If we do not trust the president then the very secrecy of the agreement will suggest it has something to hide.

The relationship between trust and secrecy was described by Bruce Schneier. Trust allows the public to accept the unseen. But evidence of too many things unseen undermines trust. Schneier writes:

Ronald Reagan once said “trust but verify.” That works only if we can verify. In a world where everyone lies to us all the time, we have no choice but to trust blindly, and we have no reason to believe that anyone is worthy of blind trust. It’s no wonder that most people are ignoring the story; it’s just too much cognitive dissonance to try to cope with it.

This sort of thing can destroy our country. Trust is essential in our society. And if we can’t trust either our government or the corporations that have intimate access into so much of our lives, society suffers. Study after study demonstrates the value of living in a high-trust society and the costs of living in a low-trust one.

Although these remarks were written in the context of the NSA scandal they are equally valid in the Iranian nuclear negotiations case. If trust in the Obama administration has fallen below a certain threshold then “secret deals” are no longer covered by confidence. On the contrary they are probably going to be regarded as evidence of perfidy.

Jim Geraghty raises an interesting point in this connection. “If there really is no secret agreement with Iran, isn’t the State Department declaring our trustworthy deal partners are LYING?” And if the Iranians are indeed lying then how can they be trusted in the first place.

This raises the possibility that what is really involved in the Iranian nuclear deal is not “secrecy” but parallel truths, or what used to formerly be called double-dealing. In a double deal there is no secrecy as such, only deception. There is no real secret deal, just two deals, neither of which is real; a situation in which the administration says one thing to the public and one thing to the Iranians neither of which is actually true.

This creates difficulties. When Fred Kaplan writes “We Have a Deal With Iran. A Good One,” the obvious question is what deal is that? The deal he says he’ll give the Iranians or the deal he describes to the American voters? When “fair and balanced” Andrew Sullivan denounces “democrats for war with Iran … the Senate is full of them” the alternative is … what?

A simple minded man might argue that you can’t tell what cards are in a hand until they’ve been laid face up on the table. A “secret deal” or one about which “we will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available” represents cards that are face down. Andrew Sullivan might take president Obama’s word for things, but there’s no obvious reason for those who don’t trust him to extend a similar confidence. What has he done to earn it?

Until then maybe the best course is to bear in mind the slogan: “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”


Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres
Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.
Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
DUELING PRESS CONFERENCES

The White House:
We have a deal
One based on trust
We think a steal
But not discussed

Tehran:
We got our way
We got it big
And now you’ll pay
You satan’s pig

Israel:
We stand alone
But we shall fight
What they have sown
They’ll reap in fright

CANADA:
On with the game
That’s what they say
No one to blame
That’s hockey, eh?

BRITAIN:
How déjà-vu
So Munich so
We’ll muddle through
We’re Brits you know

36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The previous post is on point here, so if I may I will repeat part of what I said:

>>>There is nothing real about Buraq Hussein Ubama [stolen] except the damage that he has done to this country. Not one thing he has done has been to its benefit. Not one of his promises has come to pass. He AND EVERYONE WHO HAS ENABLED HIM are enemies of the country, the American people, and the Constitution. The surest bet in the world right now is if Obama or his people say that something is "A", then it is a matter of ontological certitude that it is something "B-Z" if not "ψ", "щ", or maybe "Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó".<<<

Based on experience with both Iran and Buraq Hussein Ubama; certain patterns emerge.

Iran is the enemy of the United States and its people. It has been blatant about it. It declares its enmity openly, and openly attacks us. They are not our friends, but they are honest.

Buraq Hussein Ubama claims to be on our side, and yet my quote above holds absolutely true. Based on the correlation of statement with fact, Iran is telling the truth and we have given them permission to develop and deploy nuclear weapons; against ourselves and any remaining allies we still have. And given the fact that from our point of view the Iranians are Chiroptera feces crazy and there is no indication yet that modern deterrence theory has ever penetrated their little Shiite-filled skulls; they are going to use them to bring about the return of the "Occluded" 12th Imam during the period of universal fire, death, and destruction.

I am going to miss the Library of Congress, the Folger Shakespeare Library, and the Smithsonian; among other things.

Subotai Bahadur
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps you can't know the cards until they are face up, but you can learn "tells".

When you make an arms length deal with a partner...you both announce it.

When one of the parties has to fool its own people, so they won't rebel against the deal, the other side keeps quiet so as not to give the game away. However, when one side holds all the cards, they can give away the hidden truths...because they have already won.

The Powerline guys called Obama a cuckold, who endures humiliation and abuse because he is terrified of his partner leaving him.

Iran knows this and humiliates him at will. THAT is the tell. They are telling the truth because Obama is on his knees. He gets exactly...nothing. In exchange for "giving peace a chance". It's a mucked hand. And Obama has America and the world going all in on it.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (42)
All Comments   (42)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
It's Obama. All these pundits, the best and brightest, the well educated, the well credentialed with a great pedigree and resume can't grasp a simple concept.

All these superior intellectuals still assuming President Obama is like all the previous presidents when this guy is actually trying to 'fundamentally transform' the US into something different. Why is that so hard to accept when Obama himself brags about it.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
This agreement is illusory. The best case scenario is that Iran acquires the same status as Japan or South Korea capable of becoming a nuclear weapons state at the flip of a switch. The worst case scenario is that Iran will cheat and become a nuclear weapons state under the guise of a type of hudna. Obama entered into this agreement because attacking Iran is unthinkable and trying to contain Iran is beyond the capability of this generation of Americans. Long story short is that Iran will become a nuclear weapons state. The only reasonable thing for its neighbors to do is to follow suit. I suspect the impact of this agreement on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be dramatic.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Noting this part of your post:

>>>Obama entered into this agreement because attacking Iran is unthinkable and trying to contain Iran is beyond the capability of this generation of Americans.<<<

I disagree with the above, and would replace it with, "Obama desires the outcome of a nuclear armed Iran and its damage to US interests and allies."

Otherwise, I agree.

Subotai Bahadur
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you for the digression!
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
You might be interested in a bit of history of the demise of NASA. Previously I mentioned Sally Ride and her efforts too introduce politically correct speech into NASA. But there were men too. Carl Sagan for one. Remember "Nuclear Winter' and the Nuclear Freeze movement? What seemingly had NASA's blessing in the early 1980s died in the desert of Kuwait in 1991. Saddam Hussein's experiment in the introduction of massive soot clouds into the atmosphere by setting hundreds of oil wells alight failed to thrust Southwest Asia in an ice age.

But was there a bigger, better known "scientist" at that time than Carl Sagan?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Re ''media is'', etc. How about ''referendum/referenda'', ''pudendum/pudenda'', ''curriculum/curricula''?

''We have to vote on a referendum which is ... are(?) ... hmmm.''

''Our engineering college offers a number of curricula which is tailored to the students' interests.''

I will skip maximum, presidium, quantum, stadium, et. al.

(I won't even touch pudenda)
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Chaucer provided help for those like you in The Canterbury Tales. He introduced "the C word" into the English vocabulary. Of course, the ivy tower crowd frowns upon "the C word", preferring the word vagina.

Somehow, I'd expect you and Hangtown Bob would prefer reading Chaucer to The Vagina Monologues.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Spelled "queint" in Chaucer, as I recall, which has a bit more charm than the "C word."
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
(I won't even touch pudenda)

Well....... I might if there are some available??!!
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, at least I didn't say ''get into.''
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
O/T - We were having a discussion the other day about the use of "media" as a singular term, e.g. "the media is..."

As part of that I made a point the English has become the universal language, supplanting Latin. s such, English need not be bound by the rules of Latin grammar. There is a book review in the Wall Street Journal. Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity, which delves into some related topics.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579304543365787518?mod=ITP_opinion_0

The traditional view of Shakespeare was that he knew very little about classical literature. Ben Jonson, his fellow playwright, famously wrote that his friend had "small Latin and less Greek." Shakespeare's education didn't extend beyond his grammar school at Stratford-upon-Avon, which he would have left around the age of 15. Jonson's plays took their inspiration from classical authors, while Shakespeare supposedly wrote from natural instinct—a conviction still widely held today.

Think again, says Colin Burrow in "Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity." Mr. Burrow, a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, observes that classical texts were extensively taught in grammar schools, as well as widely available in English, with the result that Shakespeare knew "at least as much classical literature as many classics graduates today."


I expect most BCers would agree that Shakespeare is a seminal source for what is the modern English language.

Mr. Burrow argues that in the late 16th century a generation of classically trained grammar-school boys was unleashed on a society with a shortage of suitable jobs to satisfy their verbal skills. It was no surprise that so many of them channeled their talents into writing for the new theaters that had started springing up in London, though Shakespeare's "teachers would probably have been appalled to see what he did with the learning they gave him."

Or this nugget from the review...

Shakespeare's ancient allusions, Mr. Burrow stresses, were always "theatrically motivated performances rather than scholarly citations." He could parody his characters' aspirations to classical learning, as in the pageant of the nine worthies staged by the pedant Don Armado in "Love's Labour's Lost" or in the comic mangling of Ovid's tale of Pyramus and Thisbe by the "rude mechanicals" in "A Midsummer Night's Dream." This was a way to mark characters' social position but was also, Mr. Burrow suggests, a way for Shakespeare to hedge his learning at a time when a culture of educational snobbery made "grammar-school wit" a term of abuse.

It appears that our age is not the only one with a snobbish cultural elite, as epitomized by Obama and his Ivy League lawyers, who are bound "to be left on the ash heap of history".

...

Communism is a system dead,
dead as it can be.
First it killed the Soviets,
now it's killing me!

Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
My comment was for you post, MachiasPrivateer.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Need more coffee..
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Something does not add up. The US built a nuclear bomb from a standing start in less than 4 years -- at a time when no-one even knew if such a device were possible. Did it under wartime conditions of resource constraints. Did it with 1940s technology. Did the calculations with rooms full of women with adding machines.

Since then, South Africa built a nuclear weapon while all the left-thinking people in the world were imposing embargoes and other obstacles. Pakistan built a bomb, even though it cannot feed its people. Benighted North Korea has built a bomb, for goodness sake!

Thanks to decades of left-wing loonies and to the Clintons' need for campaign funds, designs of modern US nuclear weapons are rumored now to be in the possession of those who will resell them for the right price. Germans will gladly sell any necessary manufacturing technology to anyone with cold cash. Last time I checked, 44 countries have nuclear reactors -- and supporting industrial infrastructure.

Yet Iran has been diddling around supposedly trying to build a bomb for more than a decade that we know of. That simply lacks credibility. Is the whole Iranian nuclear program just a low-cost Potemkin village to frighten the neighboring Arabs? Or has Iran actually had a nuclear arsenal for years?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
For all their bluster they may be a little hesitant to put it all together as they don't trust each other all that much much less bogeyman mossad agents or stuxnet viruses that might make it go boom when not expected, not to mention secret ultimatums from Israel, Saudi Arabia, or even, I suppose it's possible, the US.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good point, and lower yield, but equality lethal city-busting atomic (fission) weapons should be even easier to make than H-bombs (fusion). Miniaturization, allowing the weapons to be mounted atop relatively small missiles was a major technological advance, as was further miniaturization for MIRV's.

The story I've heard was that the purification process (i.e. reason for centrifuges) was the major stumbling block. Your question got me to reading up on the Manhattan Project, and how they managed to purify the U-235, but the wiki articles goes on for hours more than I have time for, i.e. electromagnetic separation methods, chemical, use of a reactor, centrifuges, etc.. Complicated stuff, yes, but in the age of the internet information revolution, one would think it wouldn't be difficult to produce a device in a fraction of the 20 years Iran requires. But then again, 1940's America had electricity and running water, and not all bomb seeking Muslim countries have caught up to 1940s' America yet.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
OldSaltUSN said:

"Complicated stuff, yes, but in the age of the internet information revolution, one would think it wouldn't be difficult to produce a device in a fraction of the 20 years Iran requires."

The Laws of Physics do not change with time. Isotope separation is just as hard to do now as it was 70 years ago. They tried to make isotope separation cheaper through laser enrichment methods (google "AVLIS"). The hallway gossip is that AVLIS had its funding terminated because someone was concerned about weapons proliferation. The Iranians are doing isotope separation the old fashioned way with centrifuges.

The advantage of U-235 based nuclear explosives is the actual nuclear device is relatively low tech (gun type). Plutonium can be chemically extracted from old fuel rods. However plutonium from old power reactor fuel rods has Pu-240 which makes it almost useless for weapons application. I have heard some quiet muttering that neptunium maybe an issue with an Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapon. Supposedly neptunium from old fuel rods might have weapons application. I'd be interested to read an opinion from a nuclear engineer about this.

Obviously the Iranians can not be trusted. Obama for whatever reason has concluded that he can not use military force to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program (probably his moonbat political base prohibits this). Given that situation, Obama will take whatever fig leaf the Iranians can offer and say "thank you". The Iranians know that they're holding all the aces and negotiating from that position. The big question concerns Israel. Maybe Israel has concluded that they can not stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program without nuking Iran into glass. If that's true then Israel can not respond until after they've lost a city to an Iranian nuke.

Concerning secret agreements, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact is interesting. That pact had a secret protocol where the Communists and the Nazis sold Poland and the Baltic states down the river, refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#The_secret_protocol

We know with certainty about that secret protocol because a German civil servant kept a copy of the agreement rather than destroy it, refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Denial_of_the_Secret_Protocol.27s_existence_by_the_Soviet_Union

This is shameful history and one of the reasons why World War II happened. One suspects this garbage that Obama is doing with the Iranians is on a similar level.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Blast from the Past - "You have to pass the Iran agreement to find out what is in it." And one of the favorite phases current in Washington is "Why are you talking about this, it is the law." You can't renegotiate a signed agreement. Besides you had 6 months to say something. We have become characters in a Douglas Adams novel. Where the insiders are oblivious to the curiosity of the those afflicted.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I thought secret diplomatic agreements are by definition a terrible idea? Isn't that supposed to be how WWI started?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
George Jonas in the National Post recently wrote:
"I’ll risk sacrificing nuance, and describe our current culture in foreign relations as having evolved from (A) the oldest doctrine of supporting friend against foe, through (B) the newer Cold War doctrine of supporting the lesser evil against the greater evil, to (C) the latest scary doctrine of trying to achieve moral leadership by supporting foe against friend, especially unfriendly tyrants against friendly ones, like the Shah or, more recently, Mubarak of Egypt."

When the Obama Administration supports an enemy like Iran, it doesn't matter what goofy Urban Trendoid logic they offer as a rationale. The ugly fact is they have become a friend of Iran.

This Iran nonsense is just one more betrayal of America and its allies by a foolish and incompetent President.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Now, just a minute here, Sir. Valerie Jarrett is by birth an Iranian, so there.

She surely has the best interests of ... Oh, wait. From evidence, Iran, but from oath of office, the USA. I'm not sure, but there are no successful incidents where the latter is proved true.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
DUELING PRESS CONFERENCES

The White House:
We have a deal
One based on trust
We think a steal
But not discussed

Tehran:
We got our way
We got it big
And now you’ll pay
You satan’s pig

Israel:
We stand alone
But we shall fight
What they have sown
They’ll reap in fright

CANADA:
On with the game
That’s what they say
No one to blame
That’s hockey, eh?

BRITAIN:
How déjà-vu
So Munich so
We’ll muddle through
We’re Brits you know

36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The secret deal with Iran consists of an agreement to pretend there is an agreement when there actually is none. To Mr. Obama reality consists of whatever a majority of people polled believe it is and so long as no bad consequences occur today all is fine. He knows how to campaign for office, lie to make himself look good, and blame others for anything that goes wrong. Those are the only tools he has.

And if those are the only tools one has, kicking the can down the road and calling it victory is about the only thing you are capable of doing.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All